Tuesday, December 22, 2009

When I first started bicycle-commuting, seven years ago, I was a bit worried about riding every day on roads designed only for, and filled with, multi-ton steel behemoths, driven at high speeds by stressed-out and distracted humans. I tried to find good, reliable traffic-safety statistics to comfort my wife... or bring me to my senses!

Well, at that time I could only find some high-level stats from the NHTSA saying that about 48 times as many people die in car crashes as die while cycling. We could just take that at face value and say cycling is 48 times as safe, but we all know that frequent cyclers are a tiny minority. Let's be fair to the drivers! More useful would be data about those of us who ride a lot, and compare us with the huge car-driver majority.

I found more NHTSA stats saying "14%" used a bike "20-31 days" per month in the summer. I also once managed to find data saying about 2.5% of the general population "ride regularly"... whatever that meant (and I can't locate the source any more either). Let's use that lower number of regular cyclists, to stack the odds in favor of cars (more riders would mean a lower rate of deaths per cyclist). So, assuming those dedicated cyclists making up 2.5% of the general population accounts for all of the cycling deaths, that's roughly 1 in 40 of the total population.

So the odds of being flattened while riding a bike seemed about the same as dying while driving a car (within the general population). How so, you ask? Well, there are 40 times as many drivers as regular cyclists, using my low number of 2.5% regular cyclists from above: 100% ÷ 2.5% = 40. Thus, with 48 times the fatalities for drivers, and 40 times as many drivers, the odds seem sort of closely related to the general population. OK, I know, drivers aren't 100% of the general population, but if we count passengers it gets close enough for my purposes here. (Hmmm... maybe I should count cycling passengers too. Got any stats for them?) So I figured that cycling was similarly dangerous, in simplistic terms at least, and maybe even slightly safer.

Some specific lessons I learned, though, about what groups were most at risk [though the below stats aren't necessarily "causal," that is, if females only cycle 13% as much as males, then their riding safety rat is similar to males]:

Don't ride at night (48% of fatalities; no note if they used a light or not, but I bet most didn't!).

That made me feel even better since I wasn't in any of those risk groups, well mostly. Just 3 out of 5... uh...

But none of that data addressed deaths per mile traveled. I figured that skewed the odds heavily in favor of drivers since most cyclists ride far fewer miles. Maybe my maturity, helmet use and use of lights at night even the odds out into similar levels of danger between me riding to work versus me driving to work. Hopefully.

I let things rest there.

Then later on I found some Web pages for some group named "neptune.spacebears.com" that had more interesting statistics, thanks to my teammate Gary. Very interesting. Now, that Web site does have an axe to grind with regards to helmet use, but still has some neat info. For instance, the main conclusion I really liked to read was this one:

Apparently, staying sober while trying to move, or not trying to move while drunk, are both excellent ways of improving one's odds of survival.

Seriously, this data, from the main table, was pretty hopeful: Cyclists suffer "0.2" deaths per million miles traveled, versus "1.3" deaths per million miles traveled for motorists. Yay, cycling! That was some info I could really get to like!

But could cycling really be 6.5 times as safe, per million miles traveled, as driving a car? Where did that come from? Were the numbers and calculations real? The number of deaths is pretty reliable, but the number of miles we cyclists ride is critical to really comparing safety. How do they get at this: "3,000,000,000 miles cycled every year" (mentioned near the bottom of the page)? Sounded bogus to me, but:

If "2.5" cyclist deaths "per 1 million population" is correct (also from their main table), then we should have about 750 cycling deaths per year (assuming 300 million U.S. population x 2.5 cyclist deaths per million = 750 deaths). I don't see total deaths of cyclists on this page for comparison, but the US DOT says it was "622" in 2003, and the NSC says "926" in 2006, so that is right in the middle. They look right so far.

To get at the critical data for miles ridden by the cycling population, we'll have to do some number-crunching. We'd go: 750 deaths ÷ 0.2 deaths per million miles = 3,750 million miles (3,750,000,000 miles); close to the "3,000,000,000 miles" number they mention. Well, I'll be darned. Think of the number of tires we go through.

Anyway, just to get a reality-check, that means that your average U.S. citizen rides annually: 3,750 million ÷ 300 million = 14.4 miles, or less than I ride one-way on my way to work. OK, that seems about right! :-)

Let's figure out if the car-driver numbers are right, per these numbers. Well, I'm no mathematician, but I think I spotted an error in that main table from neptune.spacebears.com. It says that there were "12.9" motorist deaths "per 1 million population." As bad as that looks, I think the decimal should be removed. The actual deaths from cars per year are usually in the 40,000 range; that would be closer to 154 motorist deaths per 1 million population (the NSC report here said 45,316 deaths from autos in 2006). In this case let's assume they meant "129" not "12.9" for a total of 38,700 deaths. Otherwise we'd have only 3,870 deaths per year from cars and even I might start driving!

OK, back to number-crunching: 300 million x 129 auto deaths per million = 38,700 deaths. Sure, that could be true in a really good year for cars. Then, that would mean 29,769 million miles traveled (29,769,000,000 miles, or 29.8 billion miles; yikes!).

But I don't want to assume any of those numbers are right, so...

According to the Federal Highway Administration, the average miles traveled for motor vehicles in the U.S. is about 12,000 miles a year. Assuming a 300-million population, as above, then we'd expect 3,600,000 million miles of auto travel (I think that's 3.6 trillion miles!). But the actual number (in 2006) is slightly lower at 3,014,116 million miles, no doubt because kids under 16 years old don't drive much, though they might add a few miles to the "3,750 million miles" of cycling calculated above.

Now then, for the 45,316 auto deaths in 2006, over the 3,014,116 million miles, that's 0.015 deaths per million miles (45,316 auto deaths ÷ 3,014,116 million miles traveled = 0.015). That number also matches well with data from the US DOT which says: "The fatality rate, computed per 100 million VMT, [was] 1.36 in 2007..." (or 0.0136 per million miles; pretty close to my rough 2006 calculation).

Uhhhh, but what happened to that very high "1.3" deaths per million miles neptune.spacebears.com mentioned? I was starting to think cycling is safer! Now cycling looks to be 13 times as dangerous per mile traveled as in a car! I was so hopeful.

Well, I won't trust any data too much, especially if it just comes off of some random Web page, but I won't stress out about it either. I can still rationalize that "my maturity, helmet use and use of lights at night even the odds out into similar levels of danger between me riding to work versus me driving to work," to quote myself. And since I ride fewer miles than I'd otherwise drive, about half as many (I ride about 10,000 miles a year; though that's kind of a lot I'd drive about 25,000 miles if I drove solo to work every day), my odds even out a bit there too. None of my calculations account for a rider's or driver's experience level, and I've heard that experienced cyclists have much safer records than, say, a 15-year-old boy. But since the same allowance could be applied to experienced motorists I will refrain from trying this.

Assuming the death rate truly is "0.2" deaths per million miles traveled by bike, and the 0.015 deaths per million miles traveled for motorists I calculated, and I use my personal mileage from above, then my odds of dying are:

Me, cycling: 0.002 chance per year (1 in 500 over 10,000 miles)

Me, driving: 0.000375 chance per year (1 in 2666 over 25,000 miles)

Hmmm, I believe that makes cycling 5.3 times as dangerous for me. Not what I want to hear! If you don't like these numbers, pick your own numbers. Let's dig a little deeper...

Annual cycling mileage is so key to comparing safety, but there's so little solid info (no offense to neptune.spacebears.com), because cycling use doesn't leave a clearly-identifiable trail like, say, gasoline use does. But I dug up some more info from the US DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics on bicycling mileage and ran those numbers for comparison. They say that "bicycling accounted for 0.2 percent (6.2 billion miles) in 2001."

If I use that higher cycling mileage from the DOT, instead of neptune.spacebears.com's number, the odds for cyclists improve by over twice. But if I recalculate the stats for cyclists with what I consider to be the better data I have used here, I get a slightly higher death-rate for cyclists per 1 million population: 300 million ÷ 926 deaths = 3.087. Still, that higher number of cycling miles yields a lower death rate of 0.149 deaths per million miles traveled by bike.

Me, cycling (recalculated): 0.00149 chance per year (1 in 671 over 10,000 miles)

I'd have to ride 10,000 miles every year for 671 years to make death likely! Better, but still 3.97 times as dangerous for me as if I drove. [Though I think the death rate per hour of travel may make more sense, which would make the risk very similar to driving.] Still, there are so many great reasons to ride a bike that I'll continue to ride even if it could be definitively proven less safe:

Stress-relief (never get stuck in annoying traffic!)

Fitness (ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound, and admiring glances from the opposite sex!)

Health (disease prevention; I like almost never getting sick)

Finances (I save about $3600 per year in gas alone, just by not driving to work, assuming $3.20/gallon)

Monday, December 21, 2009

Remember that study? Maybe, like me, you heard it on the radio while driving home from work a couple of years ago (yes, I sometimes drive to work; usually about once every two weeks). It reached the conclusion that walking to do our shopping actually carries a larger carbon footprint than driving a car to shop does, because of the extra calories burned by walking and the extra carbon emissions the extra food needed to replace them requires. So, walking makes us tired, and destroys the environment in the bargain? Lots of people want to believe that! The study (if you can call something that superficial a study) made the mainstream news by virtue of being so outrageous... and no doubt pleasing the global-warming doubters.

Pretty funny, huh! Here we ride along, all happy about our contribution to the environment, when in fact we may be the worst destroyers of it? Well, the study (by a British Green Party parliamentary candidate, ironically enough) didn't mention our more-efficient biking, but still.

The basic concept was that the extra food we have to eat for fuel to walk (or perhaps ride our bikes) requires more energy to produce, transport and cook than car-driving to the store (and thus eating less) does. Think of the farmer's tractors, chemical fertilizers, food transportation, refrigerators, stores and ovens involved to produce our extra food: the more we eat, the larger our carbon footprint. What's funny is that it seemed very plausible to me! Well, on the surface of it anyway.

But, like so many studies, this one was pretty flawed. The largest error was in the assumption that the extra calories we'd need to consume all came from British beef. Uhhhh... I thought the extra calories came from doughnuts! Real experts were able to easily reach real conclusions and debunked the study.

So that just goes to show that studies are only as good as the people who make them. If I stopped riding and drove to work instead, I'd burn more gas, and become fat! But both of these studies help raise awareness, which is good. It certainly made me think!

So one thing I've done differently over the years is to try to buy local foods as much as possible. Local foods require less fuel for transportation (and taste better too because they can be picked closer to their ripe state). And I have always been careful not to waste food, unlike your average U.S. citizen (being a child of Great Depression-era parents who also grew up in Occupied Europe during WWII gets some credit) In fact, I'm kind of a Hoover. I always grab the leftovers nobody else wants, eat the food that's past it's expiration date (slightly expired food is usually perfectly safe, maybe just a bit less fresh, according to the experts). A human garbage disposal in short, not a beef-eating gourmet.

And I now use a basic rule of thumb: the more something costs, the bigger its carbon footprint. It makes a lot of sense, up to a point. Higher costs usually are related to the labor, transport and storage of goods: all carry a carbon footprint price tag. Think of a Mercedes vs. a Hyundai. The Mercedes costs more because the R&D time to design it is longer, the labor costs higher, there's a lower economy of scale due to lower production volume, etc. And people in developed countries usually have a larger carbon footprint already (higher labor costs reflect that). The same concept can apply to things like out of season produce, expensive clothes etc.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

I remember telling Coach Mark that I'd rather cut my throat than ride a stationary bike in a gym, or a trainer (a regular bike mounted on a stand). I never rode my bike purely for training, but for commuting, health and fun. The idea of riding a "nowhere bike" seemed ludicrous. Trainers were torture implements for obsessed type-A athletes... I was right.

But over the years my riding has shifted more from commuting and more to racing. Racing is exciting! But racing requires very dedicated, consistent training almost every day. I work from home twice a week now, so on those days I need to do training rides; there's no pretense about commuting. But the quality of those workouts is higher than that of the intervals I shoehorn into my commute, so I am well aware of the compromises I was making.

I got a taste of trainers from using clumsy stationary bikes in hotel gyms while on vacation, or in the gym at work on rainy days. Yet I still managed to get in some good workouts that way. All that left me more receptive to the concept of using a trainer. I just needed a push.

My job has kept me very busy lately, and the cold, wet, dark winter leaves me less motivated. And this winter is supposed to be extra-wet. The stress of dealing with all that provided the push I needed. A couple of months ago I broke down and got myself a nice CycleOps trainer. And I'm glad I did. Now I am much more able to get in high-quality intervals without compromising my job, health, safety, or time with my wife, family and friends.

Using a trainer takes skill and incredible self-discipline. Those of us who use a power meter know how hard it is to produce the same power on a trainer as we can while riding the awesome mountain roads of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Psychologically it is way harder to push yourself to utter exhaustion while standing still.

For my first session on the trainer I was unsure how to dress, or arrange the many little details we usually deal with before a ride. On the plus side I didn't need to wear a helmet or sun screen, or carry tools and such. No worries about flat tires... or getting run over!

On the downside I knew the lack of wind would make me run hot. But it was only 52 degrees outside so I figured I could ride outside comfortably. And the lack of scenery would make time move very slowly, so entertainment would help. I settled on shorts and a long-sleeved jersey. A magazine for distraction. A kitchen timer ticking it off.

I started with 5 minutes of easy warmup, in my L1 power zone (much better than trying to pace with heartrate; prevents blow up!). Then I stepped it up into my L2 for the workout, while not overdoing it. Soon I was dripping with sweat, jersey open. I felt OK but soon the jersey was off. After a while I actually saw steam rising from my back... now I understood why guys talked of using huge industrial fans for cooling!

I wanted to play it safe by aiming for L3 at most. My legs said they could go harder so I moved into L3. It was hard, but not what I'd call suffering. Soon the timer said 10 minutes to go, so I moved up into my L4. It's really hard to hit my usual L4 power on a trainer. That's hard! But I held on for 5 minutes, then cooled down. A humble beginning, but a beginning.

The other day I did my next trainer workout: 40 minutes with 30 of them starting in L3 increasing well into L4. Very nice! It was even colder but I didn't need a jersey. I even managed to get some more reading in.

Over time I'll probably experiment with trainer-specific tires, since tires actually wear out a lot faster than on pavement, due to the high tire load required to make up for the lack of wind resistance and hills.

I have a long ways to go before I can do a 4×20 trainer workout like Coach Mark does, but by not overdoing it I know I can get some good trainer workouts in. Good thing too; work is still insane and it is 39 degrees outside, with a chance of rain!